Politics = lies

November 18, 2018

I dislike dishonesty, particularly when it is used to harm people who aren’t doing anything to deserve the harm. This is why I dislike politics– beyond the institutional theft and aggression, that is.

I dislike the lies the political Left tells against the political Right.

I dislike the lies the political Right tells against the political Left.

Not because either of those statist sides is innocent, but because it seems like liberty is always caught in the middle.

The political Left lies and says that respecting the right of a business owner to choose to not bake a cake is hate which violates the rights of someone to buy a cake from someone who doesn’t want to bake one for them. They blame the political Right for this outrage.

The political Right lies and says that anyone breaking a counterfeit “law” they agree with, such as “immigration laws” is a bad guy by definition. They blame the political Left for encouraging this criminality.

The political Left lies and says that if you don’t want to ban guns you hate children and don’t care if they die.

The political Right lies and says if you don’t support the War on Drugs you want everyone to be addicted and on welfare.

The political Left lies and says that socialism isn’t suicide.

The political Right lies and says cops are good guys.

The political Left lies about what Trump says and does in a way to rile up their side, and the political Right lies about what Trump says and does in a way to rile up their side.

Most of all, I dislike the lies the political Left and the political Right tell against those of us who don’t buy into their lies.

Lies to the Left and lies to the Right. And I’m not on their spectrum at all.


Reminder: I could still really use some help.

This blog is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.


Winning isn’t permitted under their rules

November 16, 2018

You have probably noticed this, but in case you haven’t: you can’t win.

No matter what you talk about someone will say you are using the word wrong; even that you are a fool or a tool for using the word as you do.

From freedom and liberty, to government and state, anarchist and statist, and beyond. I’ve found this to be the case anytime I discuss a topic which is important and controversial (along the statist/anarchist divide, especially).

Which is why I try to make sure to explain how I use a word, and why I use it the way I’m using it.

But you still can’t win. Because then you’ll be accused of making words mean what you want them to mean instead of what they “really” mean. Even worse is the crime of coining your own words.

But, I don’t care.

You can’t win… if you play by their rules.

To me, winning is living in liberty. At least as much as possible when surrounded by people who believe in, and support, aggressive institutions which insist you aren’t allowed to opt out. They are the real losers, no matter what they believe about themselves.

The fact that they try to redefine “winning” so it’s exclusive to them doesn’t change that.

I’m taking tomorrow off for personal reasons.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Wilson, the stubborn

November 15, 2018

I had a friend– I’ll call him “Wilson”– who was… interesting.

He was a bit of a conspiracy nut, more than a little paranoid, hated government, was good at outdoor survival skills, had questionable taste in women, and was very stubborn.

Yes, he had his flaws (as do we all) but all-in-all he was a decent guy. I always enjoyed hanging out with him.

Here’s one tale about him:

One winter his woodstove was not safe and he couldn’t use it. The stove pipe was messed up somewhere above the ceiling. His landlord refused to repair the stove pipe so a fire could be lit. This was the only heat in the house, and it was already winter near Gunnison, Colorado.

He told his landlord that he would fix the stove pipe himself and deduct the cost from his rent. The landlord said “no”. Wilson wasn’t the kind of person to just bite the bullet and fix it at his own expense. So after a bit more arguing over it, Wilson simply stopped paying rent. And the landlord never tried to kick him out.

He spent the winter in an unheated house– which obviously meant he had no running water, either.

He was lucky– I don’t think the temperature ever got much colder than 20° below 0 (°F) that winter. He lived diagonally across the river from me, and I went to visit him a few times over the winter. His house was about the same temperature inside as the outdoors. He wore his coat all the time.

He slept in one of those “100 below” mummy-type sleeping bags, inside a pup tent, in his bedroom. He said it was warm enough. His house would warm up a little if he cooked something, but that didn’t last long and I don’t think he cooked much.

I offered to let him hang out at my house some, but he didn’t want to. He said he didn’t want to get used to heat. He would sit at my campfire out by the wikiup with me, though.

That was his last winter in the area.

After a few other incidents, Wilson suddenly vanished. Years later I ran into him far from home, while I was on a vacation. He was working in a resort town in New Mexico and I bumped into him on the street. We caught up a little; he told me of more recent incidents, and I got his (general delivery) address. I mailed him a few times, but eventually my letters came back as “undeliverable”.

I might relate some other Wilson stories another time. There are a lot of them to tell: his clash with the post office, his clash with the sheriff, the time he became convinced I was working with the cops against him, his clash with the forest circus (his term), why he wouldn’t use the internet (he would know this is about him, but I know he’ll never see it), his pop-up camper incident, his clash with the highway patrol… I notice a pattern here. But not all fit the pattern. If any of those pique your interest, let me know and I’ll write it up for another day.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Concealed carry key to safety for all

November 14, 2018

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 14, 2018)

I want you to be safe. I hope you don’t do things to endanger yourself and others, and I want you prepared– everywhere you go– in case someone else means you harm.

In the past couple of weeks there have been at least two cases of some loser deciding to murder people who were harming no one. I will not boost the fame of these murderers by using their names; calling them losers is clear and accurate…read the rest

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

The enemy of liberty

November 13, 2018

This local town government is anti-liberty, as has been whatever government any town I’ve ever lived in or near suffered under.

The Texas and New Mexico governments are anti-liberty. So was every state government I have been bothered with.

The U.S. government is anti-liberty. That’s the only national government I’ve had any experience with, but I’d be willing to be all the others are anti-liberty to some extent.

world government would be anti-liberty.

What’s the common thread? Government.

Government is anti-liberty.

Liberty is the enemy of tyranny. Governments (or their supporters) seem to take this personally. So, of course, all governments are going to be against liberty to some extent. If they want to consider me their enemy because of this, that’s fine with me.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Coercive “solutions” make problems worse

November 12, 2018

Just because there’s a problem, that doesn’t make it OK to violate people because of the problem.

Poverty exists. It’s not good. That doesn’t justify theft-financed “welfare” programs, even if they eased the pain of poverty. There are better, voluntary ways to deal with it.

Maybe Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is real. Maybe not. Maybe, if it is real, it is a net negative. But even if it is, that doesn’t justify putting government in charge of fixing the problem; empowering government to crush your rights– your life, liberty, and property– to fix it. Even if government– the world’s worst despoiler of the environment– even had any actual inclination to do so, or knew how.

Even if anti-gun “laws” would reduce crime (archation), it doesn’t mean it’s OK to violate the natural human right to own and to carry weapons.

Even though people are born ignorant, that’s no excuse for forcing others to pay to indoctrinate them as they grow. And if you say it’s about education, you’re lying.

The right to violate rights, even with good intentions, doesn’t exist. Even if it actually worked.

Problems are always going to exist. Government is just another problem, and can’t solve the others. If you can’t think of a way to make problems less harmful without stealing and attacking other people, you are part of the problem. It’s time for you to let it go.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Theft makes “society” happy

November 11, 2018

Is it good to take your property from you if doing so makes me feel good, and makes the person I give it to feel good?

What if almost everyone says they are made happier when I take your property?

People who believe in “public good” are OK with it. And, it seems that everyone who believes in political government thinks it’s OK.

Even if you say you only support a “night watchman government” you’re advocating the same thing with the same justification. But you can keep your “night watchman”; I don’t need or want one. I have better things to spend my money on. If I come to believe I need a night watchman I would rather spend my money on security cameras and more weapons. If for some reason I feel particularly scared for a while I would rather hire a night watchman of my own choosing, and I wouldn’t expect you to chip in to pay him… unless you want to.

I see people who support government making this kind of argument all the time. They believe if enough people are happy that my money is being taken, then it’s good. I would be crazy to object– my opinion isn’t a serious opinion. I am not one of the “adults” contributing to the conversation. All because I don’t support theft just because “the majority” are made happy because of it.

Funny that I don’t see it that way at all. There is NOTHING I want bad enough to have someone steal from you to pay for it on my behalf.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human “Rights”

November 10, 2018

Some people, particularly in other parts of the world, praise the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and seem to think it’s really something special. I’ve never paid any attention to it myself, even though I’ve heard it mentioned for years. I had never read it to see exactly what it actually said, but curiosity finally got to me.

So, I guess it’s time to put my nose to the slime-stone and see what’s in there.

Oh, look! It starts with a preamble. All important documents should have a preamble. Let’s see what’s in it. I notice the English used is a little awkward here and there. I’ll pretend I don’t notice.

Hmmm. The preamble displays some seriously flawed misconceptions, such as the delusional belief in “the rule of law”, which you probably realize is a myth always and forever, everywhere. It’s simply not a “thing”.

It also pretends “nations” can act and develop “friendly relations” with each other, and that this is somehow tied to human rights. Well, governments fighting each other can be seriously bad for the people caught in the middle, but the solution for that is the dissolution of the offenders.

The declaration is determined to promote “social progress”, yet it promotes government supremacy which is the opposite. This is dangerously regressive thinking.

It also, as is so common, mistakes freedom for liberty. It’s a convenient conflation.

The pompous preamble ends by pretending territories can be under the jurisdiction of “Member States”.

So, that was kind of a mess. Let’s see what the rest of the thing says.

(I’m not going to copy the whole declaration, just bits and pieces. If you want to follow along as I work my way through it, here’s the complete text.)

Article 1.

(What do the writers of this document consider “a spirit of brotherhood“? If it is mutual respect for each other’s rights, then I’m fine with that. But so often, proglodytic documents seem to feel “brotherhood” enslaves one to another. I suppose we shall see where this leads below.)


Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms (ahem… libertyset forth in this Declaration

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs

(So, humans as property of a State)

“…whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty

(States aren’t sovereign; people are– I sense government supremacism on display here.)


Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

(Yes. And this means they also have the right to defend these rights with the proper tools: weapons, equal to the weapons of any potential violators [particularly the relevant government] as personal property. Otherwise this right is being treated as a privilege.)


Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

(That’s nice, but… “prohibited”? By who? Enforced how? Does this include imprisonment by governments?)


Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

(Unless government and/or a majority of the population approve and call it “necessary”.)


Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

(Recognition as a person is meaningless when the law is counterfeit and when it is administered and enforced by a State.)


Article 7.

(Pretty much a repeat of Article 6)


Article 8.
(In which they promote the notion of “competent” government “tribunals”, and assert that rights are “granted” by constitutions or laws. No thanks. If it’s “national” I want no part in it. Give me competent independent arbitration which is not connected in any way to any State. And my rights don’t hinge on the opinions or documents of bullies.)


Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”

(Dare they define “arbitrary” in some way which doesn’t excuse enforcement of counterfeit “laws”? Nah.)


Article 10.
(Again with the tribunal. Why always a tribunal? If one arbitrator is independent and impartial, one is enough. If the tribunal members are statist government supremacists, then the tribunal is a bad joke and you’re doomed.)


Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(Will the legitimacy of the “law” also be judged? If not, no thanks.)


(Again, just because something is a “penal offense” doesn’t mean it’s wrong.)


Article 12.
(“Arbitrary” again. The “law”, and those who wield it, is the main culprit. Who will hold it accountable when it is the one interfering and attacking?)



Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.” (Why only within the borders? And where do private property rights come in?)

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

(How about the right to have no country?)


Article 14.

(I don’t see any big problems with this one, other than the UN’s haughty self-promotion. Maybe you can find something.)


Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(But is everyone obligated to have a nationality?)

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

(I’m now Liberlandian, except on those days I’m devoid of nationality.)


Article 16.
(1)the right to marry and to found a family…”

(Yeah. And…? Government has no right or “authority” to meddle.)

(2)…the free and full consent of the intending spouses.”

(Common sense.)


(A bit of editorializing by the authors. State “protection” is often a death sentence. How about keeping the State out of it.)


Article 17.

(Agreed. Now if only governments would recognize that they and their decisions are all arbitrary.)

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…”

(No one has the right to use government or its “laws” to impose his religious beliefs on others, whether it’s called Sharia or “Blue Laws” or prohibition or…?)


Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

(Google doesn’t think so. That’s why they help the US government spy on everyone in the world, and why they are helping the Chinese government censor search results to keep people ignorant and complacent. But the right of freedom of expression doesn’t mean anyone is obligated to let you stand on their soapbox or to listen to you ramble on.)


Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(Why only “peaceful”? You have the right to assemble and associate violently to meet an aggressive threat.)

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

(Including a “country”? Can I be compelled to pay “dues”?)


Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(No one has the right to use politics to govern others.)

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(“public service”? Are they talking about access to “public services” like being thoroughly policed, etc., or about the equal “right” to have access to run for political office and “serve”? Either way, it sounds like a scam. I’ll pass.)

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

(“Authority” is the most dangerous superstition. According to this document, mob rule is beautiful.)


Article 22.
(This article is just trying to justify entitlements and a socialist “safety net”. States have no resources. Anything they possess to redistribute is stolen.)


Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(So, no “freedom of association” then? In that case I want to be employed in some job where I do what I already do, but I make several thousand dollars a week (or even per month). Hey, it’s my right to choose this employment and these just and favorable conditions!)

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(Sure, if that’s the agreement you make with the person you work for. Just because I spend X hours per day researching and writing doesn’t mean I’m entitled to be paid the same amount that J.K. Rowling is paid for the same amount of work.)

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(Stolen from other people against their will.)

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

(And every employer has a right to employ members of that trade union, or not, as he sees fit.)


Article 24.
(A denial of “freedom of association” again. Who limits the working hours? Who pays for the holidays?)



Article 25.

(“Entitlements”, Paid for by theft.)


(Extra “entitlements” just for being a mother or child.)


Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education…”


Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages…”

(“Free”? Wait, are you speaking of education or schooling?).

Elementary education shall be compulsory.”

(Slavery. So not education, but schooling after all. Sad.)

Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.”

(Merit is good… And if you can’t pay? People shall be enslaved for your benefit?)

(2) Education … shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(So, indoctrination, not education.)

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

(Wait… but you said it would be compulsory. Pick one. And no one can be “given” an education. They can be given the opportunity to educate themselves.)


Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(So if I want to go to the movie, a concert, or Billy Bob’s Backyard Beer Bash and Karaoke Party, I can just walk right in and quote the above because I have the right to “participate in the cultural life of the community” and “enjoy the arts”? If I want the newest iPhone or to get an MRI just for the fun of it, it’s my right, because I have the right to “share in scientific advancement and its benefits”?)

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

(I guess that settles it– Intellectual Property (IP) is real!)


Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

(What if I recognize that some of the “rights” you’ve detailed aren’t rights and I am ethically opposed to them? What if I know of rights you’ve ignored or violated with this document? Am I entitled to a social and international order based instead upon actual rights and liberty, under the Covenant of Unanimous Consent?)


Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.”

(Your only duty to the community is to respect the rights of every individual in it.)

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

(This is a particularly horrible one. “Law” is either harmful or useless. Morality is more accurately known as situational ethics, and can be downright evil, depending on the prevailing culture. “Public order” means “Stop making a scene and let the nice policeman murder you in the streets or in your home at 3 a.m.”, and general welfare– as promoted by statists– is a lie used to justify anything government wants to do. If it’s not to the individual’s welfare, it isn’t to the “general” welfare. And democracy is mob rule; NOT something to promote.)

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

(There goes the myth of the Rule of Law right out the window. It sounded nice until it got in the way of the “authority” of this governmental body.)


Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

(What about the rights you conveniently ignored? Or the imaginary “rights” you made up?)


And that’s the end of the thing.

So, it’s a mixed bag. Not as bad as I had supposed, but falling far short of actually recognizing, much less helping individuals protect, their natural human rights in accordance with living in liberty.

It’s much too excited about “democracy”, and can’t seem to shake the superstitious belief that government is somehow legitimate and has “rights” over what to do with the individual people laboring under the weight of supporting this elitist millstone. It recognizes some natural human rights while promoting some unnatural human “rights”.

There are much better rights-promoting documents, but no document can protect rights. That’s up to you and me, as individuals. And States, as promoted by this document, are the natural enemy of rights and liberty.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The “right to vote”

November 9, 2018

Is there any such thing as “the right to v*te”? Can there be any such thing? Or is it just a figment of the imagination?

In the past week or so I sure saw a lot of people talking about this supposed “right”.

There is no such thing as a right to govern other people. Any act of governing others is archation— it violates their natural human rights in several ways. No one can have the right to archate.

To v*te is to endorse using political violence, through government and its “laws”, against others. Do you really have a right to do that?

Sure, it is possible you might only be endorsing using political violence against those who are endorsing the use of political violence against you— in self-defense. And some people might think it’s preferable to use defensive political violence instead of using defensive violence of other kinds, such as shooting those who are threatening you in a credible way.

But is it really better? I’m not sure. I’m not even so sure it ever works, in the long-run.

I sympathize with the claim of defensive v*ting, even if I don’t completely buy it.

I won’t condemn anyone who feels the need to v*te. Even though it sure seems like an endorsement of the “system” and a pledge to go along with whatever results from the election. After all, democracy, like all politics, is “winner take all”; “win/lose”. It’s “American Roulette”. Why play a rigged game you can’t win, even if you believe you have the right to do so?


Reminder: I could still really use some help.

This blog is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

“Liberty” doesn’t mean “with permission”

November 8, 2018

I’ve once again encountered one of those people who likes to believe that the word “liberty” means something along the lines of “with the permission of an authority“. This is mostly based upon the military’s long-standing intentional misuse of the word.

It’s similar to authoritarians’ intentional misuse of the word “anarchy” to mean socialistic nihilism.

And the way the word “literally” is so often used to mean “figuratively”, which is literally the word’s antonym; its polar opposite.

Make people confused over what words mean and you can control how they think… or if they think.

Freedom is doing whatever you want. Nothing more; nothing less. You can say, as some do, that freedom carries responsibility, but then it wouldn’t really be freedom, since so many don’t want the responsibilities, and they wouldn’t be “free” to reject them.

Liberty is doing what you have the right to do. And you have the right to do anything and everything which doesn’t violate someone else’s equal and identical rights. In this way liberty is self-limiting; there can never be “too much” liberty because you never have the liberty to violate others. But you do have the freedom to violate others if no one is holding you at gunpoint to prevent it and it’s what you want to do.

Because too much freedom can be a problem, and if they can get you to confuse freedom for liberty, and liberty for “with permission”, they can get you lost in the swamp. If you can see the downside of too much freedom you can be manipulated into believing there can be “too much” liberty. And if you’re lost in the swamp that badly you aren’t a threat to them and you won’t be much use to yourself.

One of the worst things the military has done– besides the mass murder, oppression, and destruction– was to take a good word and fool people into believing it means the opposite of what it means, and then convince them to fight to preserve the perverted, wrong meaning in order to keep people on the wrong track. I guess that’s an example of “military intelligence”; intelligence to serve evil.


Reminder: I could still really use some help.

This blog is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.